llvm dev - Jul 2016 - Dynamic selection of assembly mnemonic strings

Hi LLVM Dev,

 

I have an old problem that I've wanted to clean-up for some time.  Our chip
has gone through a number of iterations in the past few years, but with each
revision there have been changes to some of the mnemonics for instructions.
These are mostly very simple, for example we had a 32-bit load from memory
instruction named 'LD32' in one version of the chip, but for a later
version
this was changed to 'LD.32'.

 

The semantics and schedule remained the same, but in the TD file I had to
introduce two 'def's for this (actually, I abstract a bit more and use a
'defm'):

 

def LD32_v1 : Instr<... "LD32" ...>,  Requires<[isV1]>;

def LD32_v2 : Instr<... "LD.32" ...>, Requires<[isV2]>;

 

This all works fine, but there is a large number of them which makes
maintenance difficult.  This also adds to the burden of selection when using
'BuildMI' in the C++ code, as I have to do things like:

 

if (isV1())

  BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32_v1)

else if (isV2())

  BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32_v2)

 

What I would like, is for some mechanism that can substitute the version
specific mnemonic dynamically (perhaps using a lookup table), and I could
reduce the above to just:

 

def LD32 : Instr<... "??MetaMnemonic??" ...>;

and:

BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32)

 

Does anyone know how this can be achieved without resort to placing some
Meta-Mnemonic for '??MetaMnemonic??' and replacing this with the version
specific value during AsmPrinting?

 

Some instructions have more elaborate substitutions, but the general
principle is the same and there are a large number of instructions that are
affected which makes the TD files very large, and the conditional
'BuildMI'
code overcomplicated.

 

Thanks,

 

            MartinO

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160708/2fe1097b/attachment.html>

Do instruction aliases do the job?

http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#instruction-alias-processing

Is it ok to have the same source file use LD32 in one instruction but LD.32
in the next one, or do you want different modes?


On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi LLVM Dev,
>
>
>
> I have an old problem that I’ve wanted to clean-up for some time.  Our
> chip has gone through a number of iterations in the past few years, but
> with each revision there have been changes to some of the mnemonics for
> instructions.  These are mostly very simple, for example we had a 32-bit
> load from memory instruction named ‘LD32’ in one version of the chip, but
> for a later version this was changed to ‘LD.32’.
>
>
>
> The semantics and schedule remained the same, but in the TD file I had to
> introduce two ‘def’s for this (actually, I abstract a bit more and use a ‘
> defm’):
>
>
>
> def LD32_v1 : Instr<... “LD32” ...>,  Requires<[isV1]>;
>
> def LD32_v2 : Instr<... “LD.32” ...>, Requires<[isV2]>;
>
>
>
> This all works fine, but there is a large number of them which makes
> maintenance difficult.  This also adds to the burden of selection when
> using ‘BuildMI’ in the C++ code, as I have to do things like:
>
>
>
> if (isV1())
>
>   BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32_v1)
>
> else if (isV2())
>
>   BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32_v2)
>
>
>
> What I would like, is for some mechanism that can substitute the version
> specific mnemonic dynamically (perhaps using a lookup table), and I could
> reduce the above to just:
>
>
>
> def LD32 : Instr<... “??MetaMnemonic??” ...>;
>
> and:
>
> BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32)
>
>
>
> Does anyone know how this can be achieved without resort to placing some
> Meta-Mnemonic for ‘??MetaMnemonic??’ and replacing this with the version
> specific value during AsmPrinting?
>
>
>
> Some instructions have more elaborate substitutions, but the general
> principle is the same and there are a large number of instructions that are
> affected which makes the TD files very large, and the conditional ‘BuildMI’
> code overcomplicated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>             MartinO
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160708/bce8afa8/attachment.html>

Thanks for the quick answer Bruce.

 

So far as I can tell (from a quick read), this is really for integrated
assemblers/disassemblers - but we use an external assembler.  When invoking
clang we would provide ‘-mcpu=chip_v1’ or ‘-mcpu=chip_v2’, and the mnemonic
‘LD32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v1’, while ‘LD.32’ is only valid
when compiling for ‘chip_v2’.  But I will study the mnemonic aliasing carefully
to see if it does provide what I need.

 

All the best,

 

            MartinO

 

From: bruce.hoult at gmail.com [mailto:bruce.hoult at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hoult
Sent: 08 July 2016 12:32
To: Martin J. O'Riordan <Martin.ORiordan at movidius.com>
Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Dynamic selection of assembly mnemonic strings

 

Do instruction aliases do the job?

 

http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#instruction-alias-processing

 

Is it ok to have the same source file use LD32 in one instruction but LD.32 in
the next one, or do you want different modes?

 

 

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >
wrote:

Hi LLVM Dev,

 

I have an old problem that I’ve wanted to clean-up for some time.  Our chip has
gone through a number of iterations in the past few years, but with each
revision there have been changes to some of the mnemonics for instructions. 
These are mostly very simple, for example we had a 32-bit load from memory
instruction named ‘LD32’ in one version of the chip, but for a later version
this was changed to ‘LD.32’.

 

The semantics and schedule remained the same, but in the TD file I had to
introduce two ‘def’s for this (actually, I abstract a bit more and use a
‘defm’):

 

def LD32_v1 : Instr<... “LD32” ...>,  Requires<[isV1]>;

def LD32_v2 : Instr<... “LD.32” ...>, Requires<[isV2]>;

 

This all works fine, but there is a large number of them which makes maintenance
difficult.  This also adds to the burden of selection when using ‘BuildMI’ in
the C++ code, as I have to do things like:

 

if (isV1())

  BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32_v1)

else if (isV2())

  BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32_v2)

 

What I would like, is for some mechanism that can substitute the version
specific mnemonic dynamically (perhaps using a lookup table), and I could reduce
the above to just:

 

def LD32 : Instr<... “??MetaMnemonic??” ...>;

and:

BuildMI(..., TII->get(SHAVE::LD32)

 

Does anyone know how this can be achieved without resort to placing some
Meta-Mnemonic for ‘??MetaMnemonic??’ and replacing this with the version
specific value during AsmPrinting?

 

Some instructions have more elaborate substitutions, but the general principle
is the same and there are a large number of instructions that are affected which
makes the TD files very large, and the conditional ‘BuildMI’ code
overcomplicated.

 

Thanks,

 

            MartinO

 


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160708/f69a73f4/attachment.html>